THE BAYLY TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 21748, 16 June 1934, Page 9

THE BAYLY TRIAL

MORE EXPERT EVIDENCE CROWN CASE APPROACHING COMPLETION [Pee United Peess Association.] | AUCKLAND. June 15. On resumption after the luncheon adjournment Mr Northcroft again showed a double slide of the test shell fired from a Winchester rifle and the shell which fell from Bayly’s denims. Witness said he had not drawn Jus conclusions from those two _ photographs alone, as copper varied in hardness from cartridge to cartridge, 1 here were accidental marks on*each in addition to the characteristic marks. Counsel suggested that a true comparison of the shells would be made by placing them alongside one microscope of the same focus and with similar Thf't would be ideal,” replied Dr Brown, who added that special microscopes were made for that purpose. He thought there were none of these instruments in New Zealand. The instrument he used needed photography to make a comparison. Re-examined by Mr Meredith Dr Brown said he meant by a characteristic mark a mark which could be observed on every shell or a large proportion of the shells. These characteristics were traceable to the striking pin itself. The accidental marks, did not occur on more than one cartridge, and were Caused by the manner in which the copper had crumpled when it was struck. Witness then divided into each category the marks decipherable on the photographs produced. il 1 am convinced that the shell, exhibit 70, given to mo by Detective Sneddon to test, and the shell from the Winchester found in the swamp were fired from the same rifle,” declared Dr Brown. “ You were asked if the parallel lines and the convergent lines could be made from the same knife cut. You gave the opinion that they could. What does that depend on? ” asked Mr Meredith. , “It means that ofae group had been completed a fraction of a second before the other group commenced,” replied witness, who said there was no limit to varieties in the action of the .wrist. In ■having with a knife to imitate the marks photographed it would be .necessary exactly to imitate the action of the hand which made them. At Mr Meredith’s request witness again demonstrated the marks on the soap bars to the jury, explaining the action required to'produce each. Li reply to His Honour witness said he had fired seventeen test shells from the rifle found in the swamp. “ Were the striker marks in your opinion identical? ” asked His Honour. “ Yes,” replied Dr Brown. “ lii your opinion the . striker marks on these were identical with that on exhibit 70? ” continued His Honour.

f< yes,” , ■ Witness said he had examined 190 cartridges fired from seventy-six other rifles and had found none comparable with exhibit 70. “ You are quite certain about that? ” asked His Honour. “ Quite, certain.” Witness then detailed the persons who had assisted him to take _ and develop the photographs, describing what part in the operations they had Frederick Palliser Worley, of Auckland University College, said he had examined the bottom rail of Lakey’s shed and also an upright in Bayly’s separator room. He saw a cut on the wood from Lakey’s bearing marks similar to. the marks on the cut on the other timber. From a visual inspection he would say that the cuts da both timbers were made by the saine instrument. Witness had taken no microphotographs, but had seen those taken by Senior Sergeant Dmme and Dr Brown. “ Having examined those microphotographs of the two pieces of wood what is your opinion?” asked Mr Meredith. . „ , , “ The conclusion I reached after a very careful examination was that they had been made by the same knife, but by opposite sides of the same knife, replied Professor Worley. His opinion was based on the fact that one piece of wood bore a number of ridges made by the irregularities of the knife while the other bore grooves which were likely to be made to correspond with the ridges if the other side of the knife had been used. In the case of the wood from Bayly’s the knife had been used in the direction of right to left and on the other timber the • direction of tho cut appeared to be from left to right. ' The photographs indicated that if the same knife made the two cuts the inclination of the knife on the second timber was much greater than on the first. Professor Worley demonstrated to the jury with photdgraphs how he considered the inclination of the knife changed during the cutting action. . ‘ ■ . “I have made experiments, placing together the photographs of the cuts from Lakey’s and Bayly’s* continned Professor Worley. My considered opinion is that the corresponding distribution of the lines and also tho character of the lines are so great that tho two sets of cuts were made with the same knife. I considered the probability of a cut being found which would agree, with the out on the wood from Lakey’s as closely as does the cut on the wood from Bayly’s. I say that if thirty woodcuts were examined every day in the week and every week in the year there was a possibility of one being found in 100 years which would correspond as closely. It was not likely that one could get absolute agreement between tho two photographs, because the projections on one side of the blade did not necessarily correspond with the notches on the other side. Witness could not say anything in regard to the probability of tho steelmarks having been made by the steel photographed. “ I can only say the marks appear consistent with having been made with that steel,” he stated. Professor Worley said he had seen a silhouette of the edge of the knife. The marks on the edge of the blades were consistent with having made the marks on the wood, although there were marks on tho wood not represented by the notches on the blade. “ I do not consider the agreement sufficiently close for me to find more than that the marks are consistent.” He added: “ I do not find proof that the marks were made by the knife. All I can say is that the marks are consistent.” Witness had photographed shell exhibit 70, and also the test shells fired from the rifle recovered from the swamp. He had also examined photographs of the striker pin of the Winchester rifle. “My conclusion was that the test shell from the swamp rifle was fired from the same rifle as fired exhibit 70. I consider the evidence absolutely conclusive.” declared Professor Worley, who detailed twentyfive characteristic marks on which ho based his opinion, which corresponded in each shell. .Witness was requested to

show these marks to the jury on unmarked photographs. “ I would like the jury to have a magnifying glass. Some marks are exceedingly fine,” he remarked. “It is one of the things one would require an hour to do.” “ Take your time, and do it thoroughly,” said Mr Meredith. As Mr Northcroft requested that the explanation be placed on record in the evidence, His Honour asked witness to state his points clearly enough to be recorded. Professor Worley then indicated on the photographs the points on which he based his opinion. After comparing the photographs of the shell found in Lakey’s garden, the test shell fired from Bayly’s and the Spandau shell found under Bayly’s steps, witness had come to the conclusion that the shell from Lakey’s garden was fired from the Spandau rifle and the shell found on Bayly’s steps was also fired from the same rifle. The court then adjourned till tomorrow morning.